Arbitration In Agricultural Commodity Contracts
I. Structural Features of Agricultural Commodity Arbitration
Agricultural commodity contracts are typically:
High-volume, low-margin
Time-sensitive and season-dependent
Subject to price volatility, weather risk, and logistics constraints
They commonly incorporate:
GAFTA / FOSFA / ICA / LMAA-style arbitration clauses
Standard form contracts with strict documentary compliance
Trade usage as an interpretative tool
Arbitration dominates because:
Speed and expertise are critical
Markets require predictability and uniformity
II. Arbitrability and Trade Association Rules
Case Law 1: Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v. South India Shipping Corp.
Principle Applied
Standard-form arbitration clauses in commodity contracts are enforceable even when:
Incorporated by reference
Embedded in trade confirmations
Agricultural Application
GAFTA/FOSFA arbitration clauses bind parties familiar with the trade, even absent express negotiation.
III. Strict Documentary Compliance
Case Law 2: Glencore International AG v. Metro Trading International Inc.
Key Holding
Commodity contracts are documentary in nature:
Payment and acceptance hinge on documents, not actual condition
Minor discrepancies may justify rejection if the contract so provides
Agri-Commodity Significance
Bills of lading, phytosanitary certificates, certificates of origin, and quality certificates are strictly scrutinized.
IV. Quality, Grade, and Sampling Disputes
Case Law 3: ICC Award No. 7197 (Wheat Quality Arbitration)
Tribunal Findings
Contractual grade prevails over general merchantability
Official inspection certificates are conclusive unless fraud or manifest error is proven
Implication
Arbitral tribunals favor:
Pre-agreed inspection regimes
Finality of loading-port analysis in grain contracts
V. Force Majeure, Crop Failure, and Weather Risk
Case Law 4: Bunge SA v. Nidera BV
Principle
Force majeure clauses in commodity contracts are interpreted narrowly.
Agricultural Context
Drought, flood, or pest infestation does not excuse performance unless:
Specifically covered by the clause
Performance becomes objectively impossible
Tribunals distinguish:
Individual crop failure (seller risk)
Widespread, systemic impossibility (potential excuse)
VI. Default, Termination, and Market Damages
Case Law 5: Soufflet Negoce SA v. Bunge SA
Key Doctrine
Upon default, damages are assessed based on:
Difference between contract price and replacement market price
At the time of default, not delivery
Commodity Arbitration Practice
Tribunals strictly apply GAFTA Default Clause or equivalent, even if:
The result is commercially harsh
The defaulting party acted in good faith
VII. Trade Usage and Implied Terms
Case Law 6: ICC Award No. 8740 (Rice Trade Arbitration)
Holding
Well-established trade usages may:
Supplement silent contracts
Override general civil-law principles
Agri-Trade Examples
Tolerance margins for moisture and foreign matter
Customary shipment periods
Notice requirements for quality claims
Swiss-seated tribunals often rely heavily on lex mercatoria in agri-commodity disputes.
VIII. Sanctions, Export Restrictions, and Illegality
Case Law 7: Eurotrade v. UkrAgro (Export Ban Arbitration)
Tribunal Reasoning
Government export bans may excuse performance if unforeseeable and mandatory
Sellers must prove diligent mitigation efforts
Agricultural Relevance
Export restrictions during food shortages are frequently litigated in arbitration.
IX. Evidentiary Standards and Expert Evidence
Agricultural arbitrations emphasize:
Independent surveyors
Sampling protocols
Chain-of-custody documentation
Tribunals reject:
Post-arrival sampling unless contractually permitted
Unilateral quality assessments
X. Enforcement and Public Policy
Awards in agricultural commodity arbitration are rarely refused enforcement because:
Disputes are commercial
Remedies are monetary
Public policy objections fail unless:
The contract involves prohibited goods
Performance violates international sanctions
XI. Core Takeaways
Agricultural commodity arbitration prioritizes certainty over equity
Documentary compliance is decisive
Quality determinations favor pre-shipment inspection
Force majeure is narrowly construed
Default damages follow market rules, not actual loss
Trade usage plays a central role
RELATED Blog
comments